Arcsight Engineer The Computer Merchant, Ltd US-DC-Washington Post A Job | Post A Resume

By Brian Proffitt
Managing Editor

Indemnification. It's a big word. It's fancy, and all legal-ly sounding.

It's also, as applied to software, complete horse hockey.

Yes, IANAL, but I am a human being with what I hope is a modicum of common sense. And to me, it seems that this whole indemnification thing is just one big trap for the open source community.

Last week, the new legal firm of Gates and Ballmer came out with the announcement that from now on, most end users of their software would be protected from lawsuits under Microsoft's new indemnification plan. This was in response to cries of "BS!" from the industry observers when Ballmer's pre-Halloween memo highlighted lawsuit protection as one advantage of sticking with Microsoft. He was called out because everyone with half a brain knew that only the largest Microsoft deployments were covered. Rather than being called a liar--again--Ballmer issued a correction this week with the new plan.

On the surface, indemnification for any software, open or closed, seems like a good idea. Dig down about a centimeter and you'll soon discover that protecting end users from lawsuits is about as kosher as protection rackets from the Mafia--especially as it applies to proprietary software vendors.

It has to do, at least to me, with the very structure of open vs. closed source development. Proprietary development is typically managed and owned by a single entity, most usually corporate. Open source software is developed, usually, across many entities. Some are individual. Some are corporate.

When you look at Microsoft Excel, you can pretty much point to the owner of the code. When you look at OpenOffice.org's Calc, you could point to the Calc team as the developers, but as the owners? No... nor could you really point at Sun Microsystems, since they have given the code to the community. You might need to go all the way back to Star Division to trace ownership of code, but that's ancestral. Who owns it now?

Let's say I patented the spreadsheet cell, way back in the 80s. Clearly, some people are using my invention. Who do I sue? If it's Excel, well, then I'm off to Washington State. Suing the Excel end users would never even occur to me. Why would it? I have a clear legal target with lots of cash. But, if I want to take the OpenOffice.org folks to task, then it becomes a bit more problematic. Sun seems a likely target, but only if I can prove they own the code and were responsible for the inclusion of my idea. Tricky. Sue an individual developer? Again, tricky. Who wrote the code? And, even if I tracked that person down, I seriously doubt that person will have enough funds to recompense me for my loss.

Now, if I were SCO, at this point I would start wondering about suing large end users of Calc. Threaten them with a suit, and I'll either get a quick settlement, or they'll drop Calc like a hot potato and hopefully set up a ripple effect of end users dropping Calc, too. Calc is punished for stealing my brilliant idea.

This threat of end user lawsuits is clearly what is bringing the idea of indemnification to play in these times. But for a proprietary company to say they'll indemnify customers is ridiculous. It's like selling cans of Florida sunshine. If someone wants to try a trademark, patent, or any other kind of suit against a closed-source vendor, they're going to go after the vendor, not the vendor's customers.

The indemnification trick is just that--a trick to put open source vendors in the unenviable position of coming up with a response to potential litigation. (Remember that word potential, I'm coming back to it.)

In 1948, Lyndon Johnson was running for the US Senate in Texas. He was not expected to win against his Republican opponent, Coke Robert Stevenson. Three days before election, he called his campaign manager and suggested they call a press conference and state that his opponent fornicated with dogs. His campaign manager was aghast "We can't say that!" To which Johnson replied, "Yeah, but let that bastard get up and start denying it!"

That's the urban legend. What really happened was less colorful, yet no different in outcome. Johnson had spent more money on the race for the senate seat than had ever been spent on a race until that time. Then, like now, money bought media time, which Johnson used to accuse Stevenson of failing to back the Taft-Hartley act and wanting to repeal the act. Stevenson barely responded, sending a letter to various news outlets, and that was all. Doubt was cast on Stevenson, and (with the help of some ballet box irregularities in East Texas), Johnson won that election.

This whole notion of indemnification is just like Johnson's tactics, real or legendary. Proprietary vendors get up and say "we'll indemnify, how about Linux?" Linux software vendors can either (a) say nothing, since they think the whole notion is crazy or (b) respond with like measures, which ironically will increase the size of a legal target, since potential litigants can now point to something and say, "hey, there's some money for us."

What I wish open source vendors would say is "let them sue." I'm serious. I think one solid end-user suit would quickly set a precedent in the courts that such suits are frivolous and unenforceable. Of course, in reality, I wouldn't wish a lawsuit on anyone.

And we may never see a real end-user lawsuit against open source software. As David Berlind pointed out in a column yesterday, we haven't seen one yet! For all of SCO's threats and saber rattling, they have not sued a Linux end user for using Linux. It's all been contractual or trademark oriented stuff.

Indemnification is a nice ideal, but it is utterly unnecessary. If someone steals code, it's the developer's problem, not the end users'. That's true on either side of the closed/open source fence, and the proprietary vendors know it.

Users of open source are not likely to get sued, and developers of open source software don't have much to fear. If the notion of open source was so litigiously dangerous, why would Sun be about to open source their flagship operating system?

Doesn't sound so dangerous to me.

Index Mode   |   Flat Mode   |   Thread Mode   |   Thread Flat     Talkback(s) Name  and Date   I agree, it's a snow job.    Bob Robertson Nov 13, 2004, 00:07:47     Indemnification    Epaminondas Nov 13, 2004, 01:55:38     Repercussions    Philip Sagstetter Nov 13, 2004, 02:09:34     Yep!    jav1231 Nov 13, 2004, 04:54:11     Re: Repercussions    John Bell Nov 13, 2004, 14:15:14     synthetic requisites    R.L. Nov 13, 2004, 16:16:53     Spot on    mlynx Nov 13, 2004, 16:17:21     Home | Search Talkbacks | Customize View    Top of Page   Enter your comments below: * Your Name: * Your Email Address: * Subject: CC: [will also send this talkback to an E-Mail address] * Comments: Tags allowed:<I>,<B> and <U>. See our talkback-policy for more about talkback content. Fields marked with * are required!